U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 28, 2009 09:43 PM UTC
31 Comments
Is where he stands on the current reform discussions. If health care reform legislation passes in the next six months, it’s not going to be the same issue for people. If meaningful reform passes, saying you support single payer is like saying you support unicorns; it won’t matter, because that discussion will be over with for many years.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Jared Polis also supports single-payer, but he’s made a lot of missteps when it comes to the current legislative push. I support single-payer too, but that doesn’t mean it has a chance in hell of passing.
It’s also a lot different than going out and supporting a public insurance option. Right now people (not just lay people, but smart people too!) are so confused about the difference between single-payer, public option, single provider, and all of these other terms that this kind of thing only muddies the waters.
I’m happy that Andrew Romanoff still supports single-payer, and that he’s happy to share that with a television audience, but what has he done in the current reform movement? The answer is very little, and when you narrow it down to what he’s done since he left his job as Speaker of the House and the Democrats won back the White House, the answer is nothing.
true legislatively, it is not true in terms of public perception.
The fact is, as a challenger, Romanoff can make statements that define his position in ways that are favorable to dem voters for the primary, in such a way that Bennet will not be able to.
Advantage Romanoff.
It will also not be pretty if Bennet does not make the 30 % at the caucus.
Michael Bennet has done more legislatively for health care than Andrew Romanoff. Would you agree with that statement?
I don’t think Bennet will say the following
“I support Single Payer”
let alone included, in any bill coming out of the House or Senate, WHO FUCKING CARES?
Seriously, can we have a discussion about an actual policy issue that currently exists or can we just look forward to 10 more months of this dribble?
His support for single payer is only even slightly relevant until a health care reform bill passes. Once a reform bill passes, it doesn’t matter if he supports single payer anymore.
If it comes down to being able to say “I support single payer” (Romanoff) or “I helped to pass health care reform” (Bennet), we’re going to go out on a limb and say the latter is more impactful.
is subject to debate.
being willing to say you support Single Payer in an interview, after saying the same thing to dems at various democratic dinners and functions – adds to Romanoff’s credibility among the base.
and, even if it is not true, the perception on Bennet is that he only strengthened his stance on PO after the primary challenge was leaked.
truth be damned
could have headed off that perception with a more forceful stand on issues – but he did not.
Perception matters – and he could not gain enough steam to head off a primary challenge
that came 8 months after his appointment and after raising more than a couple of million dollars?
Shows a lack of ability to communicate with the base and a lack of enthusiasm among voters with both Ritter and Bennet.
Bennet could have slammed the door on a primary, but failed to do so.
http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
..and why, oh why, do you continue to help insults on Bennet in your quest to prop up Romanoff? Such an exercise does not help AR……especially since the obvious response to your point is that AR’s challenge has less to do with Bennet than with AR’s inability to land a job in the past year. Nothing else explains AR’s decision to wait until now to announce his passion for the job, so late in the game.
actually, there are lots of rumors about bait and switch moves by Ritter re: Romanoff and a job.
But let’s not speculate with those rumors.
This is the way I think it went down.
1) Romanoff took time to figure out what he wanted to do.
2) despite massive Dem support, team Romanoff probably knew that Obama and DSCC would be coming on strong for Bennet.
3) repeated pleas from state party dems and other developments (perhaps continued discontent among the base with Bennet)
was enough to get Romanoff back in the game.
As for RSB’s comments about Bennet travelling the 64 counties – I think those travels and the response to Bennet may have actually hurt Bennet more.
RSB said
Yes, I have a problem with that too –
But where does Bennet stand?
No answer?
..or it was the fact that he failed to land a job. Either is plausible, right?
You think that going to all 64 counties hurt Bennet? Has ROmanoff even done that?
And you spoke to my point about EFCA, but you didn’t respond to anything else I said. I don’t expect you to, but I will continue to rip apart your attempts to attack Bennet for things that are either distorted or just made up.
I can’t figure out how making it a top priority to meet folks in every corner of this state translates into something bad.
Then again, just hours ago, Wade was telling fellow supporters not to go negative and stick with the facts and you can see from this diary how long it took him to ignore his own advice by posting this shit.
Do you even care that the perception is wrong as long as it helps your candidate win? This one post has more distortions and revisionist history than anything I’ve seen you write on this subject in recent memory.
First of all, you’re again quoting Cindy Lowery (who is bound by rule not to formally endorse a candidate, but not to say things other than that) who is a thoroughly Denver Democrat, and who is quite possibly Romanoff’s most vocal unnofficial supporter. She’s playing the game though, and I don’t fault her for that–I just don’t think it’s the greatest evidence towards why Romanoff would be a better senator.
Secondly:
This is a ridiculous statement. Romanoff isn’t running because of Bennet, he’s running because of Romanoff. The way you, other supporters, and St. Andrew himself have been making it sound, there was nothing short of the hounds of hell that was going to stop him from running this race. “He’s running because he wants to be in the US Senate” is an honest, straightforward explanation, and I’ve heard and seen it as the reason for his running from multiple Romanoff supporters. Indeed, it would be far more true to say that Romanoff is running despite all of those things you mentioned.
Lastly, the “more forceful stand on the issues” which you claim would have headed off a primary is void of any specific vote or piece of legislation.
Are you talking about EFCA? Romanoff doesn’t support card check.
Are you talking about health care? Michael Bennet has been at the forefront of this debate–much moreso than Mark Udall, who has seniority over him–and despite the fact that you and others have been trying to say Romanoff’s presence in the race caused MB to become more vocal on public option, it’s been proven to be false so many times I’m honestly amazed you continue to go there.
Are you talking about the President’s budget and the stiumulus? Bennet has been traveling to all 64 counties trying to convince people that it was necessary spending.
Are you talking about climate change? Michael Bennet told a group of rural farmers in Ft. Morgan (heart of Republican CD-4) about how cap and trade will help agriculture.
He’s making the hard sell to the people who need to be sold on the tough issues. He’s fighting hard for working families, and he’s been doing the dirty work while Romanoff has been trying to gether enough support to try to do the exact same thing Bennet is doing.
For you to say that the perception is what it is, while using lies and distortions to sway said perception towards your candidate, is disingenuous at best, and a tired political game at worst.
Since Romanoff’s primary challenge seems to be all about Romanoff — he was denied the appointment, he needs a job, only he has the legislative reach across the aisle experience — do you honestly believe Bennet could have done anything to deter a challenge?
4 comments in 5 minutes
seems i touched a nerve.
The Speaker’s entry into the race had nothing to do with Sen. Bennet. It had to do with the Lt.Governorship falling through for the Speaker.
So hooray, now there’s another area where AR and MB are exactly the same. Are there ever going to be any legislative differences between these two? Are we ever going to get a solid reason as to why AR is in this race except his wounded vanity?
Doesn’t look like it.
In what House or Senate bill is that being realistically discussed? It’s like me saying that I support ponies for everyone. Believe me, I do. I just have no idea or way to make that happen for you all.
That is why the Public Option is so important to the heath care debate for the left. President Obama, Barney Frank and others have been quoted as supporting the Public Option now so it will lead to single payer.
Saying that Public option is the path toward single-payer is a lot like saying horses are the path towards airplanes.
You can not argue that ponies aren’t the path to being unicorns.
with about a pound of salt, won’t you, dear?
The only problem on a federal level is that it won’t happen probably for at least a decade, and that is only if the Democrats maintain their majorities.
Sen. Bennet has said that he would support single payer if it came up, but that it’s not realistic because it’s not going to come up.
He’s pushing hard for the public option.